RT Journal
A1 Fischer PM, Richards JW, Berman EJ, Krugman DM
T1 Warnings in tobacco advertisements: Marlboro man vs surgeon general-reply
JF JAMA
JO JAMA
YR 1989
FD May 12
VO 261
IS 18
SP 2633
OP 2634
DO 10.1001/jama.1989.03420180057015
UL http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1989.03420180057015
AB In Reply.—
Dr Alwitt fails to understand or has ignored the central issue in our research. The essential "context" for the warning must be the tobacco advertisement itself. Only 8% of the viewing time was devoted to the warning, while 92% was devoted to the advertisement. Comparisons with advertisements for products that carry no warnings are irrelevant.As we acknowledged in the article, the sample size is small. However, our study remains one of the largest ever reported in the literature using eye tracking techniques. Furthermore, it is the only published study to examine the effectiveness of the Surgeon General's warning for adolescents.Dr Alwitt is incorrect in her statement that the subjects should have been able to read the warning in three visual fixations. The reference1 that she cites, in fact, states that only eight letters are "seen" in the average fixation. The warnings on cigarette advertisements average